1. Blue Vinyl: Directed by Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold, Released 2002
2. The central argument of the film is that the vinyl industry has known for a long time that their products, and the materials required to make them, as well as the chemicals that leach out of them are harmful to people, and they have done nothing about it except cover up the evidence and assure the public that their products are safe. There is overwhelming evidence that the materials required for vinyl manufacture, especially vinyl chloride, are harmful to people at exposures smaller than those that the workers and even the general public face on a daily basis. There is also undeniable evidence that the industry has been aware of this for quite some time. They have covered it up and have advertised their products as safe and necessary for modern life.
3. The primary issues concerned with this problem are ecological. This industry is clearly harming people by polluting their environment including water supplies, the air and our homes. However there is also a legal problem associated with this film. What repercussions are there for industries that harm people knowingly? Normally such companies are hit with fines that represent a miniscule portion of their profits, and so they continue to do illegal things because there is still net gain in doing so. However, in Italy, there has been a case where the CEO’s of 31 vinyl producing companies which polluted a local lagoon causing the deaths of many people were formally charged with manslaughter and faced the threat of legitimate jail time for it. They were all acquitted as one might expect, but the case is still land mark. It is the first time that an individual has actually been considered responsible for the problems caused by their company.
4. The most compelling part of the film was the interview with the PR person from the Vinyl institute. The way in which he dodged questions and the like made it clear that he was there to prevent damage to the Vinyl institute and industry no matter what evidence he was presented with. None of his answers were convincing and anyone analyzing his responses critically would recognize that he was giving responses typical of a PR representative and this was very convincing. It made the Vinyl institute look bad, and made it believable that they knew they were hurting people and chose to cover it up and not act on it.
5. Less convincing was the portion of the film in which the main character was trying to convince her parents to switch to non-vinyl siding. While the film describes itself as a “toxic comedy,” I feel that this part of the film detracted from the overall message. It was more distracting than anything else. While it gave reason for the main character to be pursuing the vinyl issue like she was, it was no compelling because it was a very specific case. Additionally, there is no real evidence that they finally switched because of the chemical risks rather than so their daughter would stop annoying them.
6. Because the film focuses on vinyl as its target product to attack, it makes you wonder what other prevalent materials might be just as hazardous or worse that no one knows about, except perhaps the manufacturers. It also makes you wonder just how much manufacturers know about their products that they are not telling anyone. As a scientist in training myself, it is very upsetting to that some scientists are bullied into not publishing results, or changing them, effectively lying, for corporate interest. The main question that this raises for me is, what would I do in the same situation? Unfortunately the answer is that I do not know, and I hope I never have to find out.
7. This film is definitely meant for a causal audience. Its nonchalant nature definitely makes it easy viewing and better suited to the general public. As for academic purposes, while it contains significant useful information, the comedy part of the film detracts from its message. Overall I would recommend it for viewing for most people, but would not recommend it for academic purposes except perhaps as very introductory material.
8. The only real point of intervention in the film is consumer action, which is not to be overlooked. Consumer action amounts to consumers wielding the power of the dollar, only purchasing from companies whose practices they agree with. While this can be a powerful tool (remember the bus boycotts of the civil rights movement) it certainly should not be the only method, not to mention it will be difficult to use in this case. There are few things in the home that do not contain vinyl or similar materials. As such it will be difficult to find alternatives for enough of them to make the vinyl manufacturers change their ways. Other forms of intervention should include legal action similar to the Italian case as well as better government regulation.
9. I am not sure that this film has a place in academia. That is not to say it is a bad film, but to make it more academic the daughter-parent interaction would have to be removed or lessened, and this would make it a whole new movie. As such, I would recommend leaving it as is, but targeting the appropriate audience.
Blue Vinyl
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers1. Blue Vinyl: Directed by Judith Helfand and Daniel Gold, Released 2002
2. The central argument of the film is that the vinyl industry has known for a long time that their products, and the materials required to make them, as well as the chemicals that leach out of them are harmful to people, and they have done nothing about it except cover up the evidence and assure the public that their products are safe. There is overwhelming evidence that the materials required for vinyl manufacture, especially vinyl chloride, are harmful to people at exposures smaller than those that the workers and even the general public face on a daily basis. There is also undeniable evidence that the industry has been aware of this for quite some time. They have covered it up and have advertised their products as safe and necessary for modern life.
3. The primary issues concerned with this problem are ecological. This industry is clearly harming people by polluting their environment including water supplies, the air and our homes. However there is also a legal problem associated with this film. What repercussions are there for industries that harm people knowingly? Normally such companies are hit with fines that represent a miniscule portion of their profits, and so they continue to do illegal things because there is still net gain in doing so. However, in Italy, there has been a case where the CEO’s of 31 vinyl producing companies which polluted a local lagoon causing the deaths of many people were formally charged with manslaughter and faced the threat of legitimate jail time for it. They were all acquitted as one might expect, but the case is still land mark. It is the first time that an individual has actually been considered responsible for the problems caused by their company.
4. The most compelling part of the film was the interview with the PR person from the Vinyl institute. The way in which he dodged questions and the like made it clear that he was there to prevent damage to the Vinyl institute and industry no matter what evidence he was presented with. None of his answers were convincing and anyone analyzing his responses critically would recognize that he was giving responses typical of a PR representative and this was very convincing. It made the Vinyl institute look bad, and made it believable that they knew they were hurting people and chose to cover it up and not act on it.
5. Less convincing was the portion of the film in which the main character was trying to convince her parents to switch to non-vinyl siding. While the film describes itself as a “toxic comedy,” I feel that this part of the film detracted from the overall message. It was more distracting than anything else. While it gave reason for the main character to be pursuing the vinyl issue like she was, it was no compelling because it was a very specific case. Additionally, there is no real evidence that they finally switched because of the chemical risks rather than so their daughter would stop annoying them.
6. Because the film focuses on vinyl as its target product to attack, it makes you wonder what other prevalent materials might be just as hazardous or worse that no one knows about, except perhaps the manufacturers. It also makes you wonder just how much manufacturers know about their products that they are not telling anyone. As a scientist in training myself, it is very upsetting to that some scientists are bullied into not publishing results, or changing them, effectively lying, for corporate interest. The main question that this raises for me is, what would I do in the same situation? Unfortunately the answer is that I do not know, and I hope I never have to find out.
7. This film is definitely meant for a causal audience. Its nonchalant nature definitely makes it easy viewing and better suited to the general public. As for academic purposes, while it contains significant useful information, the comedy part of the film detracts from its message. Overall I would recommend it for viewing for most people, but would not recommend it for academic purposes except perhaps as very introductory material.
8. The only real point of intervention in the film is consumer action, which is not to be overlooked. Consumer action amounts to consumers wielding the power of the dollar, only purchasing from companies whose practices they agree with. While this can be a powerful tool (remember the bus boycotts of the civil rights movement) it certainly should not be the only method, not to mention it will be difficult to use in this case. There are few things in the home that do not contain vinyl or similar materials. As such it will be difficult to find alternatives for enough of them to make the vinyl manufacturers change their ways. Other forms of intervention should include legal action similar to the Italian case as well as better government regulation.
9. I am not sure that this film has a place in academia. That is not to say it is a bad film, but to make it more academic the daughter-parent interaction would have to be removed or lessened, and this would make it a whole new movie. As such, I would recommend leaving it as is, but targeting the appropriate audience.